Rushen v. Spain
464 U.S. 114 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unrecorded ex parte communication between a trial judge and a juror is a constitutional error subject to a harmless error analysis, and a state court's factual finding of no resulting juror bias is entitled to a presumption of correctness on federal habeas corpus review unless it lacks fair support in the record.
Facts:
- The respondent was one of six inmates tried for a 1971 San Quentin Prison escape that resulted in the deaths of three prisoners and three corrections officers.
- During jury selection, prospective juror Patricia Fagan stated she had no personal knowledge of violent crimes and did not associate the Black Panther Party with violence.
- Midway through the 17-month trial, evidence was introduced about a Black Panther member named Pratt, who had been convicted of a 1968 murder.
- This testimony triggered Fagan's memory that the victim of Pratt's 1968 murder was her childhood friend.
- Fagan met with the trial judge privately on two occasions to disclose this information and to express her fear that she might cry if the murder was discussed further.
- During these ex parte meetings, the judge asked Fagan if her disposition of the case would be affected, and she assured him it would not.
- The judge did not create a record of these conversations and did not inform the respondent or his counsel about them.
- Fagan later told other jurors that she personally knew Pratt's murder victim.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in a California state trial court convicted the respondent of two counts of murder and conspiracy to escape.
- The respondent's counsel moved for a new trial after learning of the ex parte communications.
- The state trial judge held a post-trial hearing and denied the motion for a new trial, concluding the respondent suffered no prejudice.
- The respondent appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction, finding the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The California Supreme Court denied review.
- The respondent then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The District Court granted the writ, holding that the error either required automatic reversal or could not be proven harmless.
- The State appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's grant of the writ.
- The State then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an unrecorded ex parte communication between a trial judge and a juror concerning a matter of potential bias constitute a constitutional error that can never be harmless, thus requiring automatic reversal of a conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. An unrecorded ex parte communication between a judge and juror is not an error that can never be harmless; it is subject to harmless error analysis. The court's reasoning is that the Constitution does not require a new trial for every potential compromise of a juror, as it is nearly impossible to shield jurors from all outside influences. Rejecting a rule of automatic reversal acknowledges the day-to-day realities of courtroom life and society's interest in the finality of criminal justice. The appropriate remedy is a post-trial hearing to determine the prejudicial effect of the communication. On federal habeas review, a state court's findings of historical fact—including the substance of the communication and its effect on juror impartiality—are presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and must be given deference unless they lack 'fair support' in the record. Here, the state courts' conclusion that the jury's deliberations were not biased was adequately supported by the post-trial hearing, rendering the constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dissenting - Marshall
Yes. While not explicitly adopting a per se rule, the dissent argues that the constitutional error in this case could not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the lower courts were correct to issue the writ. The adversary process breaks down when a defendant and his counsel are deprived of information critical to assessing a juror's impartiality. The state court's finding of no bias lacked 'fair support' in the record because it relied on flawed reasoning: 1) Pratt's 'tangential' role in the trial was irrelevant, as his mention was the trigger for Fagan’s highly prejudicial memory of a Black Panther murdering her friend; 2) Fagan’s own disclaimers of bias were unreliable self-assessments made under pressure; and 3) the jury's split verdict could just as easily suggest bias against the respondent—the only Black Panther convicted of murder—as it could suggest impartiality. The potential for prejudice was enormous, and the state failed to overcome it.
Dissenting - Blackmun
Yes. This dissent would have denied certiorari, arguing the case did not merit plenary review and the Ninth Circuit was correct to affirm the grant of habeas corpus. The majority mischaracterizes the Ninth Circuit's holding as a broad rule, when it was more likely a case-specific conclusion that the silent record made it impossible to intelligently apply the harmless error test. Furthermore, this case presents a 'close question' as to whether it is one of the 'extreme situations' that justifies a finding of implied bias, as discussed in the concurrence in Smith v. Phillips. Such a finding would not be subject to the § 2254(d) presumption of correctness. Given the complexity and highly unusual facts, the Court's summary disposition is inappropriate.
Concurring - Stevens
No. The judgment should be to vacate the Court of Appeals' decision, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. The issue is not a violation of the right to counsel or presence subject to harmless error analysis; some rights, like effective assistance of counsel at trial, are too fundamental for their violation to ever be harmless. The proper question is whether the trial judge's failure to notify the defense of the juror's potential bias was a due process violation that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. Under the circumstances, it was not, because the judge's error was understandable and the defendant ultimately received a meaningful post-trial hearing. However, it is 'extraordinary' that the majority concludes Fagan was impartial 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' as the undisputed facts surely establish a reasonable doubt about her impartiality, even if they do not render the conviction void.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for overturning a conviction based on procedural errors, extending the harmless error doctrine to ex parte judge-juror communications. It significantly strengthens the deference federal courts must show to state court factual findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), making it more difficult for habeas petitioners to challenge state court determinations of juror impartiality. The ruling prioritizes judicial finality and efficiency by favoring post-trial hearings to assess prejudice over a more rigid rule of automatic reversal for this type of constitutional error.
Unlock the full brief for Rushen v. Spain